The ACLU And The Zombie Apologists

It’s dead. This won’t come as anything new to regular readers here, as I’ve been chronicling this for quite a while now, even noting that it admits it’s no longer the organization it was decades ago, and it no longer wants to be. But it’s dead. The ACLU is dead, and it announced its demise on twitter.

In four words, this twit said it all: “inappropriately favoring the accused.” Even when it confessed that it would no longer concern itself with civil liberties of disfavored people, bringing a tear to former Executive Director Ira Glasser’s face, and much to the chagrin of the old civil rights lawyers who hadn’t yet sold their souls to social justice or the lavish wealth that came from hating the right people, there was still some tiny twinkle of hope that the ACLU would refocus, remember why it was formed, why it existed, and choose to stand up for the Constitution. 

It’s done. The ACLU has taken the public position that it is against due process because it “inappropriately favors the accused.”

So you’re “shocked, SHOCKED!,” right? Of course, there are some who are desperately trying to spin this in such a way as to trivialize its significance and maintain that the ACLU is still the credible voice of civil liberties, the defender of the Constitution.

The problem is that the usual suspects, woke academics, aren’t the only ones spinning and rationalizing, but voices that really ought to know better. But they can’t seem to let go of their legacy belief that the ACLU hasn’t morphed from a civil liberties organization into a social justice organization. Or, even worse, don’t care.

If your support of due process is contingent on your sympathies for accuser or accused, then you do not support due process or the Constitution.

The ACLU does not support due process. The ACLU does not support the Constitution. It’s not that their actions and cases don’t occasionally align with causes that happen to support constitutional rights, but they do so for the wrong reasons, because it furthers their social justice agenda to do so, or at least does nothing to offend their funding mob. But that’s merely a fortuitous matchup of constitutional rights with their causes, not because they support the principles at stake. Even when they utter the right words, it’s disingenuous, hypocritical, because they simultaneously announce that they hate due process, hate free speech, hate free exercise, hate the Constitution, when it serves their purpose.

The ACLU cannot love constitutional rights only when it serves to further a cause on behalf of their favored marginalized group, then hate it when it doesn’t, and still be given credit as a voice for civil liberties. What these otherwise smart voices ignore is that the ACLU has been at the forefront of eradicating civil liberties when it serves their social justice purpose. It has been affirmatively antagonistic toward constitutional rights. And now, it hit the mother lode, due process for the accused. You cannot blink and pretend this isn’t a fundamental disavowment of the Constitution.

This isn’t Gertruding, though I suspect that’s what the apologists for the ACLU’s zombie views believe they are doing. Gertruding means that it need not be said. This is false. It’s a lie. But more to the point, perpetuating this lie that the ACLU is still, somewhere, somehow, the credible voice for civil liberties enables it to speak out and be recognized by the media, academics and advocates as the defender of the Constitution.

So when the ACLU says there’s no free speech issue with criminalizing hate speech, cheers can be heard by the woke that their carceral outage has the support of the Voice of Civil Liberties and they aren’t being completely authoritarian, completely anti-Constitution. After all, the ACLU agrees, and if the ACLU agrees, it must be right.

The ACLU speaks for social justice, not the Constitution, not due process, not civil liberties. That they may occasionally cross over to support some aspect of due process when they represent a party of the correct color or gender doesn’t mean they get credit for being the voice of the Constitution. It means they are happy to whore themselves for the outcome they want, because they are on the side of the marginalized this time. They will rip the Constitution to shreds when it serves their purpose next time, and, unlike Ira Glasser, won’t shed a tear over it.

The ACLU is dead and speaks only for itself. If you feel compelled to make apologies for its continued zombie existence based on some fantasy legacy view of its value, then you are no more a supporter of due process and the Constitution than the ACLU is today.

Remember, due process “inappropriately favors the accused.” Those four words are the ACLU’s epitaph.

12 thoughts on “The ACLU And The Zombie Apologists

  1. Xchixm

    I have to wonder if any other organization will step up in its place and compete for the title of Actual Civil Liberties Union.

    1. Pepe the Frog

      They never did. It was always a Communist front organization, from the very beginning. Reading a list of high-ranking officers in the organization who went on to be imprisoned for pedophilia is enlightening also. It is likewise instructive to look down the list of high-ranking officers and executives of such a powerful organization and note how many of them were and are members of The Tribe that shall Not be Named, which is less than 1% of the US population.

      The ACLU claimed to care about “free speech” because once upon a time this “bourgeois affectation” was a principle held to be important by a majority of Americans. With demographic shifts (that they helped bring about), with democracy devolving to a mere racial head-count, and the New Brown Majority not caring less about “rule of law” or “enumerated powers” or “liberty,” or anything else other than handing out free goodies (that we pay for) and punishing people they don’t like (read: us) that’s come to an end.

      Just as “due process” was once something the ACLU pretended to care about because it was politically expedient. It is no longer politically expedient and the masks are coming off, as are the gloves.

  2. wilbur

    ” It means they are happy to whore themselves for the outcome they want”

    Quite the contrary. It means they are happy to whore themselves for the income they want.

  3. David Tarrell

    I found it disappointing , laughable even, that the ED of the Maryland ACLU said this about the incident at the Fiddler on the Roof performance:

    “More should have been done,” said Dana Vickers Shelley, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland. While such speech is protected under the First Amendment, the man could easily have been charged with disorderly conduct for the act of disrupting the play, Shelley said. Instead, he was given, she said, “what sounds like a ticket for jaywalking — or less.”

    In short, the ACLU says (1) the man’s speech, however reprehensible, is protected by the First Amendment but (2) he still should have been subjected to jail time for uttering it.

    Reminds me of the time I was a young public defender bringing the first 1A challenge to Nebraska’s stalking statute. When I called the ACLU for help they responded that they supported the Due Process rights of victims and were thus in favor of this statute that prohibits language that causes annoyance and inconvenience.

    1. SHG Post author

      The ACLU has been conflicted for a long time. That people don’t realize it, and think this latest outrageous statement is just some anomaly, doesn’t reflect a sudden shift in their forsaking civil liberties, but the logical culmination of these long standing conflicts.

  4. RS

    As a shameless lefty who favors both social justice and civil liberties — and whose conception of the former requires the latter — sending that e-mail to cancel my ACLU membership hurt. Like the others you call “apologists”, I also believe in a lot of the work the ACLU does.

    But an organization as large and influential as the ACLU needs to be held to a much higher standard; their place as a bulwark against all forms of authoritarianism demands it. Seeing a nosedive in their support is the only thing that might, potentially, be enough to get them back on the right track.

    I have my doubts it’ll work, though. I do believe the ACLU’s recent decisions represent a loud but small minority view of the ACLU’s overall support, but they’ll get away with it, because many who reject the recent turn will satisfy themselves with an angry letter or an irate tweet, instead of doing something that would have real consequences to the ACLU. And many more are passive supporters who have vague good feelings about the organization and won’t even become aware of this latest incident.

    1. SHG Post author

      What “shameless lefty” means these days is something of a mystery, but while it’s true that the ACLU does good work, it’s also true that the good work is merely kismet rather than a principled approach to civil liberties. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but when it is, that doesn’t mean the clock is working.

Comments are closed.